Stobe Talbott on tasks for the next POTU S

“Great article, Ped. Thanks for sharing.”

“I like how he rails against the US for fielding a limited anti balistic missile defense and then later says how scary it is that terrorists or a rogue nation could get their hands on one and lob it over here and that we should instead negotiate with them to keep them from getting ahold of nukes.”

“Sounds reasonable.”

“Ron Paul, is that you?”

“
� � � Flyin' that plane high on cocaine
� � � Georgie Bush you better watch your speed
� � � Trouble ahead, trouble behind
� � � And you know that notion just crossed my mind......


� � � (with heartfelt apologies to Robert C. Hunter & Gerome J. Garcia)

”

“Bring it on home, Gerome.”

“WOW...thats like referencing Gary Hilton on problems with Safety in the woods.”

““I like how he rails against the US for fielding a limited anti balistic missile defense and then later says how scary it is that terrorists or a rogue nation could get their hands on one and lob it over here and that we should instead negotiate with them to keep them from getting ahold of nukes.”
Mutt
4:51:26 PM
1/14/08

That's sort of like me saying how odd it is that you are so aware of the power, danger and determination of America's enemies and yet you are opposed to teaching and preaching Christianity in public schools.

Strobe (sorry for the typo in the thread title) argues that ABM systems can at best provide false security and, at worst, create real dangers - just as you (I believe) would argue that intense devotion to Jesus won't make our country safer.”

“No, that's a non-sequitur, pedXing.

Strobe vastly over-exagerated the "threat" our limited ABM system presents to Russia. ABM systems are decades (or more likely longer) away from being able to handle more than a few primitive ballistic missiles. Russia can do *nothing* and easily overwhelm the system. It's no deterrent to them. China probably has to (if they haven't already) upgrade their stockpile and perhaps add a few more to offset any perceived de-facto obselesence. But there's simply no impetus for either one to undergo a massive buildup to counter a system that *may* be able to take out a few missiles, at most, particularly when nukes cost *a lot* to build and maintain. They're not going to bankrupt themselves on this. Besides, the future of WMD probably resides in new delivery technology that a limited ABM system won't defend against. Perhaps space-based kinetic weapons, though I'm just speculating.

But then Strobe goes on to say that it's proliferation to the "rogues" of nukes that's the real problem. And he's right. The threat of a couple nukes lobbed at the US from a small, dissafected regional power or terrorist group is quite real. So why is he against our system, when it's precisely that which the system is realistically designed to handle? He's fundamentally disconnected from reality on this.

And of course it's funny that he forsees the major nuclear adversaries - with whom we have long-established and effective diplomatic channels, not to mention enduring economic ties and other stabilizing factors - undergoing wild arms buildups, but he's confident that freshly opened diplomatic ties and Paulistinian "niceness" will talk desperate rogues/terrorists out of developing or seeking their own. Quite the disconnect.

I don't know what his deal is, but Strobe seems to have an odd combination of Cold-War era paranoia and '90's "peace dividend" idealism. At any rate, he makes little real-world sense.”

“Mutt: First off, Talbot stresses the rejection of the ABM treaty by Bush and the breakdown of that constraint as the problem - not the "threat" of the current ABM projects we are pursuing.

Secondly, I see no reliance on niceness. He doesn't think terrorists can be appealed to to not acquire nukes - he is focused on preventing. As for Iran, you don't have to think folks are nice in order to conclude successful negotiations.”

“stresses the rejection of the ABM treaty - PedXing

Fungible, considering ABM technology is nascent and prohibitively expensive.”

“OH Please Ped tell me how YOU would PREVENT the terrorists from getting the nukes. (LOL)”

“I'd put you on the job, XL. What else?”